Monarchy debate/discussion

[SweeperDee]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

The AoU created one kingdom:  GB.

Will give you one more go.

[Antlion]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I see what you mean.

 

I imagine it’s quite difficult for someone to rant and rave about the evils of partition if they have to acknowledge that the state they’re obsessed with is currently operating - and committed to preserving - the partition of our nearest neighbour. Best to play dumb and just ignore that neighbour’s existence wherever possible.

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

Will give you one more go.

I am sure you think you have a point.  Just spill the beans, mate.

[SweeperDee]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

I am sure you think you have a point.  Just spill the beans, mate.

Will skip a few steps; what constitutes the UK?

[welshbairn]

I don't get that because a bunch of bankrupt aristos and gamblers sold their nation to England to pay off their debts, that that contract should supersede the will of the Scottish electorate until the end of times. 

[Antlion]

14 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The AoU created one kingdom:  GB.

Edit:  As a sop to @Antlion - before the wee man has an aneurysm - Ireland was always a client state and didn't  become one kingdom with the rest of us until 1801.

It was actually a lordship until it was made a kingdom - why you’re applying the anachronistic term “client state” I don’t know - well before and after 1603. So to keep saying “we” became one kingdom in 1707 is just wrong. The kingdom of Scotland joined the kingdom of England and the kingdom Ireland in having one king in 1603. The kingdoms of Ireland and England didn’t join in incorporating union until 1800 - supposedly in legal perpetuity. That was shown up to be a nonsense when Ireland gained independence and broke up the UK in the 1920s, whereupon the UK became an actively pro-partitionist state. Whether or not Scotland furthers the job remains to be seen.

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I don't get that because a bunch of bankrupt aristos and gamblers sold their nation to England to pay off their debts, that that contract should supersede the will of the Scottish electorate until the end of times. 

It doesn’t and can’t. They pulled the “forever” line in the 1800 union, and forever turned out to be just over a hundred years.

[Clown Job]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I don't get that because a bunch of bankrupt aristos and gamblers sold their nation to England to pay off their debts, that that contract should supersede the will of the Scottish electorate until the end of times. 

Pretty sure Scotland took on a whole lot more debt when it joined the union. 

[The_Kincardine]

14 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

Will skip a few steps; what constitutes the UK?

Nah.  Talk me through the skipped steps.  

You started this bit of the thread by saying, "Kingdom refers to the fact that the nations share one monarch, not that there is only 1 singular nation." and that was wrong.

You don't get off that hook so easily.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Clown Job said:

Pretty sure Scotland took on a whole lot more debt when it joined the union. 

Pretty sure it didn't.

[Clown Job]

4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Pretty sure it didn't.

So England was debt free at the time and has remained so?

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Clown Job said:

So England was debt free at the time and has remained so?

You said, "Pretty sure Scotland took on a whole lot more debt when it joined the union" and it didn't.

[tamthebam]

6 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

Used to go out with a girl in Edinburgh one of whose flatmates was some kind of minor aristocracy and was at that point in time a couple of hundred and somethingth in line to the throne.

I remember her saying the only way she'd get a sniff of the top job was if there was a nuclear war.

Which is a gag in Spike Milligan's post apocalyptic surrealist play "The Bed Sitting Room" where the monarch is now Mrs Gladys Scroake.

God save Mrs Gladys Scroake is the National Anthem

[tamthebam]

10 hours ago, BFTD said:

Even better question: what makes a good King?

 

Not being covered in shit and knowing the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (African and European)

[Hoose Rice]

3 hours ago, Clown Job said:

 

Poor guy.  His mum has just passed away.  

[Hoose Rice]

2 hours ago, Antlion said:

This, in addition to him appointing Camilla and Andrew as head “councillors of state” (to do nothing useful in his place when he’s on holiday), is magic.

King “trained from birth” Charlie already proving himself an absolute fucking liability.

Pleasing.

Moar!

Or maybe he's an old man that's mum has just passed away?  I'm sure many people can relate to when someone so close has just left this world you forget a lot of things.  Charles has to kick about public appearances at the same time too.  It's actually quite shan on him. 

Imagine the reaction from the same people looking for things to rip into him about if he was laughing and joking on top of the world.  

Maybe have a wee bit more empathy for a fellow human being and imagine how upset you will be when Daniel O'Donnell sings his last tune. 

[Lurkst]

10 hours ago, BFTD said:

But not really. At the end of the day, Chuck would have to be a very stupid man to rock the boat that he was born and raised in.

"Phwoooaarr, oh I say"

[williemillersmoustache]

15 hours ago, Stringer Bell said:

Lol

 

4 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:

Poor guy.  His mum has just passed away.  

These posts are linked. "Will Charles be shite at Monarching?" "Ocht he just lost his mum"

Of course I sympathise with him and his family but there is nothing objectively wrong about laughing at the guy losing his shit at writing paraphernalia, twice in as many days.

Personally my time for Charles evaporated (or was diluted thousands and thousands of times so the concentration of my sympathy was down to single atoms per litre) when we learned he abused his position to lobby government so the NHS would provide fucking homeopathy on the NHS.

I wonder if he thought his mum should be treated with 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% solutions of chamomile and haliborange. 

 

[Leith Green]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I was referring to her signing off the accession of Charles III at the Privy Council on Saturday.  I'd certainly not have put my signature to 'one monarch, one kingdom and one Protestant faith' and I'm surprised she did.  Her assent to these three principles is now part of Britain's archive.

More surprising is that none of the Nats on here - including you - have any issue with this

Probably because we also heard what King Charles said during his speech - specifically relating to Scotlands claim of right.

That is also "part of Britains archive" .

hth

[Antlion]

5 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:

Or maybe he's an old man that's mum has just passed away?  I'm sure many people can relate to when someone so close has just left this world you forget a lot of things.  Charles has to kick about public appearances at the same time too.  It's actually quite shan on him. 

Imagine the reaction from the same people looking for things to rip into him about if he was laughing and joking on top of the world.  

Maybe have a wee bit more empathy for a fellow human being and imagine how upset you will be when Daniel O'Donnell sings his last tune. 

Sounds like a valid criticism of a system which works people to death and then, immediately on that death, thrusts their first born child into their job and the limelight. It does seem totally lacking in human feeling.

So we can add “unempathetic” and “actually quite shan” to the list of appalling things about the monarchical system.